One Person comes to this forum time after time, as a troll, looking for opportunities to attack us and tell us that our Scriptural Statement of Faith is UNScriptural and that our "views" are heterodox. He constantly maligns us as bigots and nazis and pharisees.

He constantly aligns us with false teachers and purveyors of legalism. It is not profitable to keep answering his distracting obsession in every thread that he invades. The barrage continues.

SO, Let us just bring them here and address them here. . .

Views: 56

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

  Reply by Lou Hamby 3 hours ago

A bone to pick with the hermeneutics and the narrative of Genesis as inferred by you Jim:

"God said that everything he made was good. (Your inference) There was nothing bad in the Garden until AFTER Adam and Eve sinned"

This teaching is a dogma of many YE creationists and a mis interpretation of the sciurpture and a further addition to the interpretation to fit Ye views of no death as well as no bad thing was created by God, including Mosquitos, Carnivores, Venomous animals and snakes, and so on.  This interpretation has been rebuffed time and again by scholars... 

First of all the context of sciurpture is the creation event, designed and implemented by almighty GOd.  We both agree on this!!  THe Genesis narrative is just that, there are many details left out but a great over view of GOd's mighty Works!

So what was good Jim?  Was it not his creation, everything he made.  But the good was the whole creation, like a carpenter finished with building a house and delighting in that Work. There is no additional add on to Gods enamor of HIs own work.  Nothing here implies anything but a perfectly designed creation???!!!  

Then you and other YECs imply that nothing was bad, well what does that mean?  Anything as viewed by YECs that could imply badness is assumed and inferred to ahve not actually been created.  

What does this YEC inferences in the light of the actual narrative imply?  A litany of new additions to sciurpture that carries forth in the words of many YEC leaders such as Ken Ham and others that AIG and others YEC sites imply scirptures was clearly saying.  ITs not there JIM!!!  GODs over view of his work is clear.  We agree that the creation was perfectly designed?  Do we not agree that life as to continues in its modern form is perfectly fit for all eco-systems, Symbiotic relationships, and so on.  God is perfect in his design and nothing here infers that God "left out certain species, becasue they were bad??? 

WHAT IS BAD?  Isn't this your human perception?

The serpent indeed was one of the creatures God created for Good!  NO matter the creature was indwealt by Satan who's evil soul beguiled Eve with clever words, this was evil(not the serpent).  You espouse what no orthodox Christian accepts is unbelievable to me.

Interesting a lot of our creationist views grew out of Ellen Whites ministry and subsequent MacCready Price, but Even Ellen White taught that satan sinned before Adam and EVE. Why don't you or anyone on this site take a cursory overview of the subject on the internet and there is a plethora of Christian orthodox writings on the subject that are very clear!!! I appreciate Charles response to Murray.  It was clear and correct.

But now back to the discussion...  What now is created is inferences about nature that run counter to everything we know by observation, by evidences in nature, by the scirptures. and most clearly the design and intent if Gods work when he said it was all good.  

Good referred to his work Jim!  Not your view of nature and the garden?  His work was about nature and his design, not your view of what YECs perceive as evil?

(it was)Good  what is the "it"?  Was it not His work and designed creation event?

So then we have articles on AIG, and inferences in published accounts by YEC leaders which don't at all square with the work of God in creation.  You can't infer on the counter that God could not, or would not have created anything that is bad?  HOw do you know Jim what is bad?  Lets define some these YEC inferences about what bad is?

IF you follow Ken Ham for instance or AIG, or other YECists, you get this interpretation of "it was good...."

1.  There were no dinosaurs that were bad, they for instance like the T-rex are melons, and did not have serrated teeth?  There is no evidence of a T-Res with anything else but, bet Ken says "after the fall" these guys started eating meat and grew out serrated teeth fro meat eating.

2.  We ahve several YEC articles about thorns, and that thorns never existed prior to the fall? What that also implies is did God make then bugs that copy thorns?  Or did he crate these after the fall?  God crated parasitic plants that feed on other plants, or Venus Fly trap, or other "bad" plants until after the fall? God did not create Poison oak until after the fall? 

3.  There were no venomous lizards or snakes until after the fall?

4.  There was no disease or even stomach bugs man has in his stomach in order to live until after the fall?

5. There were no grasshoppers becasue they eat plants and this would be bad , so they existed after the fall? SO the YEC view of bad create's a host of issues with what we know and observe. 

So anything perceived by YECS as Bad did not exist.  This means possibly up to hundreds of thousand of species "had" to have been created or had some biologic explanation for new species to arrive after the fall.  So not only do we have new specie after the flood, but we also have new species or a total change in the species after the fall? Where is the explanation for the DNA information for these new species? 

But its interesting if the animals were only to eat plants, certainly God later after the fall gave Noah and humans the ability to eat meat?  But interestingly this was never rescinded for animals.  NO place in the bible does it say that animals could start eating meat?  The fact of the matter is they were already eating meat?  And this "was not bad",

Once more there is no known genetic explanation for new DNA and new fitness platforms in these supposed bad species after the fall.  It plain and simply has no evidences what so ever that this is or was GODs Plan? 

What we do observe is a perfectly designed biodiversity that lives in harmony as it was originally designed by God.  And what did God say about his design and work.  It was Good!!!  It is in that context that sciurpture clearly defines what God said about his work.  There is no other "add ons" as referred by YEC that no animal could be bad as perceived by YECS?  

MY hope is others will be challenged to explore the scirptures.  Tis in no way has any indifference on a YEC view of creation?  period. Yet YECs who absolutely don't understand nature, imply impossible scenarios to the verses of geneisis which do not say this at all.  It is an add on and spoken as dogma.  

Jim you have no clue about symbiotic relationships required for all life to exist. Yet you implore the impossible to the animal kingdom. 

I ask you what does it mean when GOD said it was good?  What was the good that GOD was speaking of about his work? ISn't the scirptures absolutely clear here?  Apologists, Christian experts, Christian biologists, and science alone, along with orthodox history supports the clear narrative...  



Lou Hamby said:

Reply by Lou Hamby3 hours ago

A bone to pick with the hermeneutics and the narrative of Genesis as inferred by you Jim:

"God said that everything he made was good. (Your inference) There was nothing bad in the Garden until AFTER Adam and Eve sinned"

OK, so here I have QUOTED Genesis 1:31 (and other verses from chapter one) and Lou says of Scripture - that this is my narrative, and MY INFERENCE.

This teaching is a dogma of many YE creationists and a mis interpretation of the sciurpture and a further addition to the interpretation to fit Ye views of no death as well as no bad thing was created by God, including Mosquitos, Carnivores, Venomous animals and snakes, and so on.  This interpretation has been rebuffed time and again by scholars... 

All I have said in the thread was the the serpent in the original creation was "very good" and there can be no sense in which his craftiness in that very good world can be construed to be evil - then Lou has brought up an unrelated topic to advance his ANTI-creationist agenda. And NO, this teaching is supported by scholars, and only rebuffed and rejected by anti-creations skeptics and compromisers.

First of all the context of sciurpture is the creation event, designed and implemented by almighty GOd.  We both agree on this!!  THe Genesis narrative is just that, there are many details left out but a great over view of GOd's mighty Works!

And? Yes. What is the point. And actually there were no needed details left out. In the summary of verse 31, and in 2:1-3, and in the authoritative commentary of a great scholar (Ravmoshe from VeEleh Shemot) it is made very clear that EVERY SINGLE THING THAT GOD CREATED IN EVERY SINGLE REALM was all completed in those six days - nothing was left out or "omitted" - and it was all very good.

So what was good Jim?  Was it not his creation, everything he made.  But the good was the whole creation, like a carpenter finished with building a house and delighting in that Work. There is no additional add on to Gods enamor of HIs own work.  Nothing here implies anything but a perfectly designed creation???!!!  

What was good is not our opinion, but it is identified by God as those things that He had made and created - "every THING that He had made" - this is what is being described as "good" . . . And then the meaning of "good" is not something arbitrary to be determined by people with an agenda. The meaning of the word good is derived from biblical usage and from the promises of God for the redeemed creation that will be expressed in the new heavens and the new earth.

Then you and other YECs imply that nothing was bad, well what does that mean?  Anything as viewed by YECs that could imply badness is assumed and inferred to ahve not actually been created.What does this YEC inferences in the light of the actual narrative imply?

The departure from logic and common sense here is incredible. We read that every thing was Very Good, but now our distinguished "bible scholar" is telling us that this also means that there were also things that were "BAD" and that things that we now know as intrinsically bad and evil are not really bad.

A litany of new additions to sciurpture that carries forth in the words of many YEC leaders such as Ken Ham and others that AIG and others YEC sites imply scirptures was clearly saying.  ITs not there JIM!!!

Now this vigorous OPPOONENT OF OUR SITE is telling us again that we are adding to Scripture. He want us to accept his notion that there was "also bad" along with the good within  the original creation - yet he blithely charges Creationists with "adding to the Scripture"? Please.

 GODs over view of his work is clear.  We agree that the creation was perfectly designed?  Do we not agree that life as to continues in its modern form is perfectly fit for all eco-systems, Symbiotic relationships, and so on.  God is perfect in his design and nothing here infers that God "left out certain species, becasue they were bad??? 

WHAT IS BAD?  Isn't this your human perception?

Our definition of BAD is never to be determined by our own human perception. We derive the meaning of bad in the same we that we have derived the meaning of God - from USAGE. Go through the whole Bible, look up every occurrence of the words for "bad" or "evil" and other synonyms. Then you accept God's definition of Bad.


The serpent indeed was one of the creatures God created for Good!  NO matter the creature was indwealt by Satan who's evil soul beguiled Eve with clever words, this was evil(not the serpent).  You espouse what no orthodox Christian accepts is unbelievable to me.

Exactly what is it that Lou thinks I espouse? What is it that he imagines we espouse that is so contra-orthodox? We have stated over and over that the serpent indeed was one of the creatures created by God for God - not only "for good" but intrinsically and by nature good and doing good, and never doing evil. This creature would have never asked Eve to do evil. It is only because the anointed cherub AFTER it was created, was found to make a choice against his maker, and then used the serpent to promote his lies, only then was the serpent able to do anything that was "not good."

Now Lou, WHO IS NOT A FRIEND OF CREATIONISTS, but rather an enemy of this site and all it represents, Lou, the attacker returns to this irrelevant and scurrilous attack - claiming that we are following people that he esteems to be false teachers. He constantly resorts to marginalizing us and ostracizing us as espousing the views of Ellen G. White and McCready, and Price.

Interesting a lot of our creationist views grew out of Ellen Whites ministry and subsequent MacCready Price, but Even Ellen White taught that satan sinned before Adam and EVE. Why don't you or anyone on this site take a cursory overview of the subject on the internet and there is a plethora of Christian orthodox writings on the subject that are very clear!!! I appreciate Charles response to Murray.  It was clear and correct.

Clearly, before the Fall of Adam and Eve, Satan - the anointed cherub had begun to choose against God - regardless of whether one wants to call this "sin" . . . At some point AFTER the very good state of Genesis 1:31- after the words of Genesis 2, at some point this being began to exalt himself above the throne of God, he began to choose against God. Now he comes to Eve and initiates his efforts to induce and seduce her to join his rebellion. Scripture does not specifically state when he led the rebellion among the angels, but in any case THERE CAN BE NO EVIL OF ANY KIND in God's universe, none, before the Six Days, or During the Six days - all that God made was "very good" - there was no tempter, there was no evil angel, there was no fallen angel - as of the time frame described in Genesis 1:31 and 2:1-3. NO EVIL: that would contradict "very good." Simple.

The Lou says "back to the discussion" - how is this a return to the topic of the original post of Douglas. NO, Lou is not going "back to the discussion," rather he is returning to his typical relentless agenda of opposing our positions here at Creation Conversations.

But now back to the discussion...  What now is created is inferences about nature that run counter to everything we know by observation, by evidences in nature, by the scirptures. and most clearly the design and intent if Gods work when he said it was all good.

Now again, Lou is going to grace us with his gnostic information about the design and intent of God's work. He claims that it is clear - but he has never given one verse that actual supports his agenda. He will often give lists of Scripture verses that are unrelated to what he is alleging, but somehow he thinks that by listing some verse that is going to fool people into thinking that he is being biblical. . . But the bottom line is that he wants us to accept the sick and twisted notion that death and suffering and bloodshed is "good" - And the prophets have a rather plain warning to those who advocate such perversion of truth (Isaiah 5:20).

Good referred to his work Jim!  Not your view of nature and the garden?  His work was about nature and his design, not your view of what YECs perceive as evil?

(it was)Good  what is the "it"?  Was it not His work and designed creation event?

Nope Lou, you're wrong. Good did not refer to the "event" or the actions of God, or the activity of God. Have you read the text? The text says that God saw all that He made (that means THINGS), and behold IT was very good. And again, it is not about "our view" but it is about the biblical usage of the terms.

BUT YOU SEE here again is LOU HAMBY'S relentless agenda to attack and vilify Answers in Genesis, and other YEC leaders as "not at all squaring with Scripture." He is telling everyone who will read - right here ON OUR WEBSITE - that all of us are unscriptural. He is attacking us as being anti-bible. He is attacking us as being opponents of God's Word:

So then we have articles on AIG, and inferences in published accounts by YEC leaders which don't at all square with the work of God in creation.  You can't infer on the counter that God could not, or would not have created anything that is bad?  HOw do you know Jim what is bad?  Lets define some these YEC inferences about what bad is?

Here is another case of Lou asking a question that is not really a question. He is not asking a question. NOT AT ALL. No, he is attacking. He is objectinig. He is arguing. He is "posting old earth theories and representing them as a matter of fact for the purpose of swaying the community (the Creation Conversations Community).

We do know what Bad is. Apparently Lou does not know what Bad is. My 5-year old grandson knows what Bad is. Children in Israel in this day knew what Bad is. But no, Lou wants us to doubt that we can really know anything. How sad. Reminds me of a recent president who wondered what mean by the word "Is" . . .

  • "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

How do we know the meaning of the word bad? How do we know the meaning of good? How do we know our right hand from our left hand (Isa. 7:15-16; Jonah 4:11; Heb. 5:14). Then Lou renews his attack on Ken Ham, by name, the preeminent creationist organization, AiG, and then creationists in general. Lou is relentless in his attacks.

IF you follow Ken Ham for instance or AIG, or other YECists, you get this interpretation of "it was good...."1.  There were no dinosaurs that were bad, they for instance like the T-rex are melons, and did not have serrated teeth?  There is no evidence of a T-Res with anything else but, bet Ken says "after the fall" these guys started eating meat and grew out serrated teeth fro meat eating.

2.  We ahve several YEC articles about thorns, and that thorns never existed prior to the fall? What that also implies is did God make then bugs that copy thorns?  Or did he crate these after the fall?  God crated parasitic plants that feed on other plants, or Venus Fly trap, or other "bad" plants until after the fall? God did not create Poison oak until after the fall?

Lou seems to think that variation within a kind, and our many variations of HUMAN KIND must all be the product of new creative activity. He is imposing this on us. There is no creationist anywhere that promotes the idea that thorns and carnivory were the result of new creative activity after the fall. Notice all these things are his own assertions about the beliefs of creationists, when in fact he has NEVER provided a single documented reference to any of us making such absurd claims. In fact we have indicated that even before the fall dinosaurs could have possessed the very same physical features, including fangs that produce venom.

3.  There were no venomous lizards or snakes until after the fall?

4.  There was no disease or even stomach bugs man has in his stomach in order to live until after the fall?

Now it becomes even deeper. Lou wants us to think that there was disease before the Fall, that there was sickness and disease in the "very good world." Astounding, the lengths to which he will go in adherence to his absurdity.

5. There were no grasshoppers becasue they eat plants and this would be bad , so they existed after the fall? SO the YEC view of bad create's a host of issues with what we know and observe. 

Why would it be bad for grasshoppers to eat plants? What is he now tangling himself up in? He is supposedly listing AiG, and Ken Ham beliefs. It has never been taught that there were no grasshoppers before the fall. SO AS LOU CONTINUES, we see that this entire list is empty and meaningless rhetoric. It does not represent the ideas of Creationists. IT IS HIS OWN IMAGINED DIFFICULTIES - and he calls them difficulties and challenges in the next section. They are no difficulty to us, since we don't accept the notions in the first place. He continues his narrative about what must have happened.

So anything perceived by YECS as Bad did not exist.  This means possibly up to hundreds of thousand of species "had" to have been created or had some biologic explanation for new species to arrive after the fall.  So not only do we have new specie after the flood, but we also have new species or a total change in the species after the fall? Where is the explanation for the DNA information for these new species?

Again, there was no need for any new creative work. There was no need for a new creation in order for man to begin to die. It was not a new creation that was the reason for death. IT WAS rather A FALL . . . changes and degeneration are not the product of a new creation, rather they are a result of the Fall of the Very Good Creation.

But its interesting if the animals were only to eat plants, certainly God later after the fall gave Noah and humans the ability to eat meat?  But interestingly this was never rescinded for animals.  NO place in the bible does it say that animals could start eating meat?

The fact of the matter is they were already eating meat?  And this "was not bad",

Here our attacker makes a claim that something is a "FACT OF THE MATTER."

Once more there is no known genetic explanation for new DNA and new fitness platforms in these supposed bad species after the fall.  It plain and simply has no evidences what so ever that this is or was GODs Plan? 

Again our opponent makes the claim that he has private gnostic information about God's Plan. Obviously he does not know God's Plan. God's plan is to bring the created back to the place where we no longer hurt or destroy in all of God's holy mountain (Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25). He labors under the delusion that bad species were "created" after the Fall, something which none of us have ever espoused. BUT in making this claim he reveals that he DOES believe that they were "bad" and that they were created bad in the beginning - thus exposing the fact that he has no regard for the narrative of Scripture.

What we do observe is a perfectly designed biodiversity that lives in harmony as it was originally designed by God.

And now he is making claims about "what we do observe." This betrays that he is in the camp with those rebuked by Peter, who believe that "everything continues as it did from the beginning of creation."

 And what did God say about his design and work.  It was Good!!!  It is in that context that sciurpture clearly defines what God said about his work.  There is no other "add ons" as referred by YEC that no animal could be bad as perceived by YECS?  

Here the confusion continues. Now he is arguing that animals COULD be bad in the original creation. Oh my, what a tangled web he doth weave . . . God says it was good. It is not good now. There has been a change. The world is fallen. The world is subject to vanity and corruption. The world is groaning in pain. THIS IS NOT GOOD. This requires redemption!

Now Lou will allege that we are not following the Scripture. ANOTHER BLATANT ATTACK of all who call Creation Conversations "Home." He is hoping that we will be challenged to explore the scriptures, when in fact he is constantly asserting that we cannot know the meaning of "good" and "bad" from an inductive review of usage throughout sacred writ.

MY hope is others will be challenged to explore the scirptures.  Tis in no way has any indifference on a YEC view of creation?  period. Yet YECs who absolutely don't understand nature, imply impossible scenarios to the verses of geneisis which do not say this at all.  It is an add on and spoken as dogma.

Now again Lou is asserting that we are adding to the Scripture. AND he is asserting that we do not understand science. That we "absolutely don't understand nature." That is offensive. That is an attack. That is a maligning of this wonderful community. He is telling us that all of our work here is sheer ignorance and bigotry and abiblical religious dogma. He is NO FRIEND OF THIS COMMUNITY. He is a Christian. But he is a Christian who opposes the positions and consensus of those who are part of this community.

Jim you have no clue about symbiotic relationships required for all life to exist. Yet you implore the impossible to the animal kingdom. 

Now he is telling us that the simple sense of the biblical narrative is "impossible to the animal kingdom" betraying that fact that is our dear deluded brother who lacks basic knowledge of genetics and DNA and variation within the biblical kinds. It is surprising and almost astounding that he can be so blind to his own twisting of the truth. It inclines me to think that our dear brother Lou is not at all blind, but he is deliberate and intentional and knows full well what he is attempting to foist upon this community in his continual attacks. If it quack like a duck, and if it attacks like an attack - IT IS WHAT IT IS.

I ask you what does it mean when GOD said it was good?

NOPE - He is not asking. He is arguing and objecting to our acceptance of the norms of usage for the terms "good" and "bad" throughout the whole of the biblical literature. And now he will assert that we are OUTSIDE OF SCIENCE and OUTSIDE OF biblical orthodoxy. And that "Christian Experts" are against us. What else?

 What was the good that GOD was speaking of about his work? ISn't the scirptures absolutely clear here?  Apologists, Christian experts, Christian biologists, and science alone, along with orthodox history supports the clear narrative... 

INDEED. Science and Orthodoxy supports our statement of Faith and rejects the nonsense that Lou is launching against us.

NOW THEN, IF Lou will remove His derailment of the thread of Douglas, then I will remove this Post. BUT as long as he continues to derail our discussions then I will continue to respond to his drivel, but NOT IN THE THREADS THAT HE IS DERAILING.

hat we do observe is a perfectly designed biodiversity that lives in harmony as it was

OK, the Invasion continues.

Lou Hamby said:

If your posting ion a public forum, you should expect different views. Douglas did anythingI say make any sense to you at all?

How shall we respond to the invaders public post?

OK, the Invasion continues.

Lou Hamby said:

If your posting ion a public forum, you should expect different views. Douglas did anythingI say make any sense to you at all?

Then the invader added:

I will not reply further..

How shall we respond to the invader's public posts?

The brother asked you to stop. Please stop.

YOU ARE OFF TOPIC. You are pursuing an agenda, and you are NOT discussing the topic.

If you want to talk about a different topic - START YOU OWN THREAD. If you want to talk about McCready Price and Ellen G. White, or what you perceive to be the errors and false doctrine of Ken Ham - start you own thread, or better yet, START YOUR OWN FORUM.

or if you want to "PICK A BONE" with someone, then do it in a private message to that person.

The topic of this thread is the meaning of "Subtle/ Crafty" with reference to the serpent (a created animal - not Satan) in the world before the Fall.

You have no interest in this topic, so you have been invited to stay out of it.

Your argument was with one individual, so don't continue to pursue it in the thread that Douglas started.

Douglas asked you to back off. So will it be necessary to refer this to the moderators of the forum?

Actually, Lou, you would be welcome to discuss anything and present alternative views. What you are not supposed to do is invade every single discussion and derail it to talk about your complaints about Answers In Genesis, or your rejection of our doctrinal positions, or your inability to "buy" the global and catastrophic nature of the Flood.

In fact, the best thing you could do would be to FRIEND DOUGLAS, then write to him and ask his forgiveness for going off-topic in your attack (bone-picking) of another poster.

Apologize for derailing the thread, and SHOW YOUR GOOD FAITH by removing your distracting off-topic posts in the thread that Douglas started.

Have you ever seen fit to remove one of your posts? I have done it for my own posts HUNDREDS OF TIMES, often at your insistence. BUT Why do you think you can complain about the posts of others, criticizing their tone, or their bias - but you will not receive any sort of correction about your own?

The problem is NOT that you represent a different view. Rather the problem is that your "comment" does not in any way address the original question. Please read it over? How did your response address the question of the meaning of subtle/ crafty? How? Where? Which phrase?

But then, I know and understand that you are never interested in discussion, but rather you are always here just to find some new excuse to attack our fundamental positions and complain about our alleged ties to Ellen G. White, and our supposed rejection of observed realities in the natural world. That being the case, you will always find yourself outside the precious fraternity of this forum - not because we ostracize or marginalize you, but because every thread you ever join is always derailed to oppose our positions. That is your choice, not ours.

See, because Douglas accepts our Statement of Faith, he is wanting to discuss this question with those who have the same approach to the biblical truth of origins. You do not share his approach, so all you can talk about is how his approach is wrong. AND DOUGLAS IS NOT INTERESTED in arguing with you or anyone about why our beliefs are wrong or right. If we wanted to argue about something like that, we'd go join "Reason to Believe" or some anti-creationist forum on Facebook.

If you will remove your public off-topic posts, then I will remove my public responses.

He said "I will reply no further" - but HE NEEDS TO REPLY - show good faith by removing the derailing post. SIMPLE. Send the brother a private message and apologize, seek reconciliation.

THEN Join us here in our brotherhood of consensus about fundamental Creation Truth, and take part in our conversations, staying on-topic.

 

Lou Hamby said:

Jim with respect to your very terse answer and off subject nasty response, your incorrect view of Psalms 104 beginnings, your insistence against the work of biblical scholars on the subject, and your mis- translation given over 22 bibles I am aware of that have a heading that state:
"Creation Psalm"? 

Mathew Henry:
The splendor of his majesty in the upper world (v. 1-4  ). II. The creation of the sea and the dry land (v. 5-9 ).

 
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Psalm 102:25 )
My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together. (Isaiah 48:13 )
that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction? For where is the wrath of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13  )
I have put my words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of my hand-- I who set the heavens in place, who laid the foundations of the earth, and who say to Zion, 'You are my people.'" (Isaiah 51:16  )
he who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land-- the LORD is his name. (Amos 9:6 )
This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: (Zechariah 12:1 )
He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Hebrews 1:10)


You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. (Genesis 1:7 )
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2 )
I was there when He set the heavens in place, when He marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, (Proverbs 8:27-28  )
Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4 )
When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band, (Job 38:9 )
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens, And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (Amos 9:6 )

But at Your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of Your thunder they took to flight;
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. (Genesis 1:9)
For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, (2 Peter 3:5 )
The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas, And established it upon the rivers. (Psalm 24:2 )

they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place You assigned for them.
God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:10 )
To Him who made the heavens with skill, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; (Psalm 136:5-6 )

You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.
when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. (Proverbs 8:29 )
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. (Psalm 33:6-7 )
...For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. (Jeremiah 5:22 )
"Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb...And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors, And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'? (Job 38:8-11 )

Psalm 104 clearly is a discussion about creation, not the flood.
Did God stretch out the heavens (Psalm 104:2)
in Genesis 6-9 (the flood narrative)? Did God set the earth on its foundations (Psalm 104:5) in Genesis 6-9? If it were talking about the flood, there would be a reference to judgment. There isn't any. There is no reference to the world being destroyed. These are all things that one would expect to see (and does see) in virtually every other biblical passage that mentions the flood.


I will respond to these personal attacks here. It would would be "off-subject" subject to address them in the thread.

Lou Hamby said:

My original question had nothing to do with this, but your nasty rebuke

So, for me to say that his view of Psalm 104 is wrong, and to predict that his view of the Psalm is the real reason for his post, and not that he has an interest in the formation of Strata. . . for me to say this is a "nasty rebuke?" When have we ever called anyone or their words "nasty?" We leave that sort of language to our opponents, like our dear gentle friend Lou.

requires some kind of response.  I apologize to the rest of the fine people here that are participating...

Above---this is sciurpture!  Not just my opinion or translation.

No, "Creation Psalm" is not Scripture. It is not a Psalm about the Creation Week. The first few verses are about God's Initial Act of Creation - but the rest of the Psalm is about the present condition of the Earth after suffering judgments and under God's sustaining care.

The Idea that it is a Creation Psalm certainly is not Scripture. Yes, it is just your opinion, and the opinion of most OE "creationists" - it is the opinion of many people, but it is opinion.

AND of course it is not a translation. It is not Scripture, so how can it be a translation? There is nothing that Lou has attempted to translate - and nothing in what I said about Ps 104 in this thread was about the translation of it. Lou doesn't know how to translate, so I have never said anything about his translation. He doesn't have one.

Lou Hamby said:

Jim with respect to your very terse answer and off subject

HOW SO? HOW was it off subject?

[how so?] nasty response,

What was "nasty"? Has anyone ever called Lou's words "nasty?" Why does He think this is OK?

your incorrect view of Psalms 104 beginnings, your insistence against the work of biblical scholars on the subject, and your mis- translation

[what word did I translate? And what did I mistranslate?]

given over 22 bibles I am aware of that have a heading that state: "Creation Psalm"?

[I only know ONE BIBLE] AND THERE are NO BIBLES anywhere which contain as part of the Hebrew text the phrase that he is claiming appears in 22 of them. IT IS NOT THERE.

But we have already acknowledged that it is a Psalm about God's Wonderful Creation - but it is not all and only about the work of the Creation Week. There was no sin in the creation week, but there is sin in this Psalm, so it cannot be about the creation wee
Jim Brenneman said:

 

Lou Hamby said:

Jim with respect to your very terse answer and off subject nasty response, your incorrect view of Psalms 104 beginnings, your insistence against the work of biblical scholars on the subject, and your mis- translation given over 22 bibles I am aware of that have a heading that state:
"Creation Psalm"? 

Mathew Henry:
The splendor of his majesty in the upper world (v. 1-4  ). II. The creation of the sea and the dry land (v. 5-9 ).

 
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Psalm 102:25 )
My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together. (Isaiah 48:13 )
that you forget the LORD your Maker, who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth, that you live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor, who is bent on destruction? For where is the wrath of the oppressor? (Isaiah 51:13  )
I have put my words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of my hand-- I who set the heavens in place, who laid the foundations of the earth, and who say to Zion, 'You are my people.'" (Isaiah 51:16  )
he who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets its foundation on the earth, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land-- the LORD is his name. (Amos 9:6 )
This is the word of the LORD concerning Israel. The LORD, who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the spirit of man within him, declares: (Zechariah 12:1 )
He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. (Hebrews 1:10)


You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. (Genesis 1:7 )
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (Genesis 1:2 )
I was there when He set the heavens in place, when He marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, (Proverbs 8:27-28  )
Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4 )
When I made a cloud its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band, (Job 38:9 )
The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens, And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name. (Amos 9:6 )

But at Your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of Your thunder they took to flight;
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. (Genesis 1:9)
For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, (2 Peter 3:5 )
The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas, And established it upon the rivers. (Psalm 24:2 )

they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place You assigned for them.
God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:10 )
To Him who made the heavens with skill, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; To Him who spread out the earth above the waters, For His lovingkindness is everlasting; (Psalm 136:5-6 )

You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.
when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. (Proverbs 8:29 )
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. (Psalm 33:6-7 )
...For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. (Jeremiah 5:22 )
"Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb...And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors, And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'? (Job 38:8-11 )

Psalm 104 clearly is a discussion about creation, not the flood.
Did God stretch out the heavens (Psalm 104:2)
in Genesis 6-9 (the flood narrative)? Did God set the earth on its foundations (Psalm 104:5) in Genesis 6-9? If it were talking about the flood, there would be a reference to judgment. There isn't any. There is no reference to the world being destroyed. These are all things that one would expect to see (and does see) in virtually every other biblical passage that mentions the flood.

OK, so here is the latest - The OPENING THREAD - is a question about the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHAPTER ONE AND CHAPTER TWO of Genesis - In light of our position here at Creation Conversations that ALL THINGS were created by God only a few thousand years ago, all within the SIX DAYS of Creation -

and NOT in some undefined dateless past, in some prior age or time of God's eternity. . . and certainly not Billions of years ago, or even millions of years ago. SO THAT IS THE TOPIC.

It is not to be another digression into whether the chronologies of Genesis five and eleven are trustworthy accurate mathematical data.

So, Lou posts this:

Is mathematics false or true?  In spite of its known existence, and its development, can it be depended upon and is it reliable?  Did God the "Designer" invent and inculcate mathematics into his design?

Has time only existed for 6,000 years?  
Is it true that Gods revelation to man is only 6,000 years?

Does Genesis infer something before the creation event?  The 6 periods of time. Are the heavens and the Universe synonymous with one another?

I think about these things in relationship to biblical references of Genesis.    

Why? If Lou wants to discuss and question the statement of faith of Creation Conversations, let him start his own Thread. Does he know how to do that?

If he wants to discuss the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11, then let him start a thread dedicated to that topic. BUT the fact of the matter is

HE DOES NOT WANT TO DISCUSS THOSE THINGS.

He only wants to attack us and interrupt our discussion.

He only wants to marginalize our positions, as found in our Statement of Faith

If He wanted to discuss these things, then he would ask one question at a time. And he would cease his practice of haranguing the site with the same barrage of questions that have ALL BEEN ANSWERED numerous times. He would ask a question, and then when that particular question is answered he would NOT ASK IT AGAIN. Once it has been answered he should cease the deceptive practice of claiming that no one is answering his questions. That is dishonest at least and certainly disingenuous.

And Here is my response.

Here we go again, another post attacking our position here at Creation Conversations.

Brother Lou has not in any way addressed the question of the opening post - which is about CHAPTER TWO OF GENESIS. Why is Lou so utterly incapable of staying on topic?

Please remove your post and start your own thread. Better yet, start your own website to talk about your unscriptural ideas. I will start a thread for you with this post of an irrelevant comment. . . I'll even answer your questions, again.


Lou Hamby said:

Is mathematics false or true?  

Mathematics is hard science. Mathematics is TRUE: 2 + 2 = 4, and the years that are given in Genesis 5 and 11 are also true.

In spite of its known existence, and its development, can it be depended upon and is it reliable?

Mathematics is reliable and that is why we have submitted to the biblical revelation that the entire universe is about 6000 years old.

Did God the "Designer" invent and inculcate mathematics into his design?

This is a silly and meaningless question. The questioner is using words that are beyond his education level, and he uses them incorrectly - inculcate? Please begin to state your questions and comments in vocabulary that is within your education level. That way you will begin to make more sense.

Has time only existed for 6,000 years?

Time began in the beginning. That is what beginning means.


Is it true that God's revelation to man is only 6,000 years?

The Bible states that all things that were made or created or brought into existence, all things that have a beginning - all things have originated in the six days of creation. And that creation took place about 6000 years ago. That is why we are "Young Everything Creationists."

Does Genesis infer something before the creation event? [the word "infer" is used incorrectly. The text infers nothing - it is the reader who infers]

There was no THING before the Creation. Creation took place in the beginning, and it was the beginning. If there was some THING before the beginning, then the beginning is not the beginning. But beginning means beginning.

 The 6 periods of time.

The Bible says nothing here in Genesis one or two about six "periods of time." The word here is yom, with evening and morning. Ordinary days. . .

Are the heavens and the Universe synonymous with one another?

Heavens means whatever it means in the Hebrew Language. The "Universe" is a modern word that means the complete collection of all things that exist as unified whole. And the Bible is clear that ALL THINGS were created in the six days of the creation week - not before.

I think about these things in relationship to biblical references of Genesis.

Interesting turn of a phrase - - - I thought all of Genesis is biblical.   

Then Lou made yet another OFF-topic comment, attacking our consensus premises.

Then Lou added another derailing attack on Creation Conversations - in which he denies the truth that all things were created within the creation week.

Jim I'm not responding to your negativity here.  I asked you several questions, you asked the reading audience several questions about Genesis 1 and 2, I am trying to establish what is factual with respect to GODs creative works with respect to the geneisis narrative.  There is only a problem with my questions if your asking people to respond, and then you pick and choose lambast others for even asking?  I don't get it?

I asked simple straight forward questions about God and time, Creation and time, and mathematics.  IF you don't have an opinion then just say so but I don't need you to "categorize" my questions in a negative way.

And for your information:  Genesis is biblical in the same sense that GOD's Work in nature is observable, known, and studied by all factions of Christianity including AIG and all spokesmen for YEC teaching.  So there is no foul here, and your clever disenfranchisement of simple questions shows your heart and intent in this matter.... 

He is again denying that all things were created within the Six Days of the Creation Week - as revealed in Gen. 2:1-3 w. Ex. 20:11. Jesus makes it clear that the span of those six days is equal to the "beginning" (Mark 10:6; John 1:1-3). AND ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY JESUS who already was "In the Beginning" and apart from Him was not any thing made that was made.

Here was my response:

No, Lou, you did not ask questions. You raised objections to our position, and you set for arguments our statement of faith - in the form of "questions," all of which I answered in good faith.


Lou Hamby said:

Jim I m not responding to your negativity here.

Then why did you respond? It is not negativity on my part, but on your part. You are the oe who is NEGATIVELY ATTACKING our position. You are responding. Why not just stay out of the conversation if you do not agree with our basic premises?

I asked you several questions, you asked the reading audience several questions about Genesis 1 and 2, I am trying to establish what is factual with respect to GODs creative works with respect to the geneisis narrative.

Here at Creation Conversations we have already accepted that the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 is entirely factual. I initiated a topic of discussion very SPECIFICALLY - about GENESIS CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO - in light of our understanding that all things were created withing the Six Days of the Creation week - recently, that is within the approximate 6000 years that this forum affirms. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THIS, so you are not part of the conversation. This is a conversation for people who affirm that all things that exist were created in the Creation Week. If you want to discuss your antithetical view, then start your own thread please. Don't come to my thread and seek to overturn it by calling in question our fundamental BEGINNING CONSENSUS.

There is only a problem with my questions if your asking people to respond, and then you pick and choose lambast others for even asking?  I don't get it?

I know that you don't get it. I've tried to explain it to you for about 5 years now, and you still don't get it. We believe that all things were created in six days, all things, and that all things (not just the earth's bio-sphere), all things were created within a YEC time-frame - within THOUSANDS of years, not millions or billions. And I did not "LAMBAST." That is what you are doing to me. It is not "Lambasting" for me to point out your continuing divergence from our foundational consensus understanding. It is you who are lambasting us here at Creation Conversations, and you do it in every single post you ever make. You are now attacking this thread and you are derailing it - again.

I asked simple straight forward questions about God and time, Creation and time, and mathematics.  IF you don't have an opinion then just say so but I don't need you to "categorize" my questions in a negative way.

Your questions categorize themselves. Your questions are not directed to the topic, but they are directed AGAINST the fundamental premise of the topic. I started the topic, so it is up to me to determine whether or not the comments and questions are in keeping with the intent of the original post. Your questions and attacks are not in keeping with the topic.

Even so, I did respond to your so-called questions - all of which were mere rhetoric against the CC Statement of Faith.

And for your information:  Genesis is biblical in the same sense that GOD's Work in nature is observable, known, and studied by all factions of Christianity including AIG and all spokesmen for YEC teaching.

But still dear brother Lou, your view of what you define as "God's Work in Nature" is that this "observable, known, and studied" data is SUPERIOR to the WORDS that God has revealed in the BIBLE. You place your fallible understanding of nature ABOVE the inerrant and knowable revelation of the Scripture.

 So there is no foul here, and your clever disenfranchisement of simple questions shows your heart and intent in this matter.... 

Thank you for again attacking me, the author of the post, with "clever" disenfranchiseing. Of course it shows my heart. My heart is to continue exalting the Scriptures, and to Exalt GOD'S word as the ultimate source of our knowledge, and the supreme authority for knowing the facts and the truth.

Again Lou, I am asking you politely to stay out of the conversation if all you can do is Lambast our statement of faith.

We believe that ALL THINGS were created by God withing the Creation Week - not before.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

About CC

Connecting Christians who believe in Biblical Creation — discussing beliefs, sharing ideas, and recommending evolution-free resources. Please keep all posts relevant to the topics of this community.

Rules of Engagement
Zero Tolerance Policy
Statement of Faith
Creation Terms
FAQ

Homeschool Curriculum

Members

Creation Conversations 2017

What's new @ CC for 2017? Stay tuned and keep checking back. More ask the experts, more creation networking and much more in store for Creation Conversation Members. You'll not want to miss this new year!

© 2017   Created by Creation Conversations.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service